On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 1:44 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.a...@cybertec.at> wrote: > > On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 01:51 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > > On 2025/06/18 6:53, Robert Treat wrote: > > > I think the more cases where you document this behavior (and I do like > > > the idea of documenting it for total_vacuum_time), the more one is > > > likely to think that places where it is not documented operate > > > differently. To that end, I think documenting it for > > > n_ins_since_vacuum as well is a good idea, but I don't feel strongly > > > that it needs to be backpatched; the old documentation wasn't wrong > > > per se, rather this is a documentation improvement as a result of new > > > development. > > > > Agreed. The attached patch updates the docs to clarify that both > > total_vacuum_time and n_ins_since_vacuum exclude VACUUM FULL. > > > > Unless there are any objections, I'll commit this to master and > > back-patch it to v18 only. > > I think the patch is good. > > One question for me is whether we should use "VACUUM (FULL)" rather > than "VACUUM FULL". > > On the one hand, the documentation (and most users) still use the > old syntax without parentheses almost everywhere. > > On the other hand, reading the VACUUM reference page, I get the > feeling that the new syntax with parentheses should be favored. > After all, the old syntax doesn't support any of the recently > added options and restricts the option order. > > So perhaps we should start propagating the parentheses more, and > the documentation is the perfect place to do that. >
That might make sense, but how far we want to take it in the first go around seems like a discussion that is best put forth in a separate thread / patch. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
